None of these statements are even close to being "an involved
participant in the discussion". Thus, on the face of the evidence, I
maintain that the EMO (me) has maintained a careful position of
neutrality and final decision authority as outlined in the processes and
bylaws.

2. _________ THE EMO'S POSITION STATEMENT _________
Next, a few words about the EMO's position on new project creation, not
just this project, but for all projects:

2.2. There is no single "official modeling story" or "single MDD vision"
from the Eclipse Foundation. No person or group at Eclipse is in charge
of determining what is, or is not, an Eclipse modeling story. The same
goes for any other technology.

2.3. There is no single location for "modeling" projects just like there
is no single location of "widget" projects or "new language IDE"
projects. E.g., SWT has widgets, Nebula has widgets, eRCP has widgets,
DLTK creates new IDEs, IMP creates new IDEs, and CDT creates new IDEs, etc.

2.4. "Competing" projects is not a problem. It's not the best state
(better would be cooperation), but it's also not a problem. We've had
competing projects before and we will again. We believe that the larger
Eclipse community will vote with their feet and choose the best solutions.

2.5. The EMO believes that "code talks, B.S. walks" and that the best
way for a project to prove itself is to operate and deliver as an open
source project. Projects that are open will attract more attention,
contribution and users (e.g. EMF); projects that are closed with wither
and die (e.g., ALF).

The main issue that raises concern for the EMO is when a new proposal is
not clearly interested in becoming an open source projects with open,
transparent, and inclusive participation.

3.1. For reasons 2.2 and 2.4, the EMO does not consider this a problem.
We believe that different expert groups (such as the Modeling PMC) will
provide different distros and solutions that appeal to different user
and adopter communities. Eclipse is not in, nor can it be in, the
position of providing a single solution to modeling.

3.2 For reason 2.5, that's a problem for the project and the PMC. The
EMO believes that projects should be given a chance to succeed or fail.

3.4. The EMO agrees that this is not ideal, but "not ideal" is not
grounds for rejecting a new project. We have many new projects that
arrive with an existing code base and evolve from there. Aperi, Babel,
EPF, IMP, and Mayanstall are recent examples.

3.5. For reason 2.2, the EMO does not accept this as a reason to reject
a project.

3.7. See answer to 3.3. The EMO believes that the Tigerstripe team is
serious about migrating – their public statements say that they are. The
EMO cannot find any public information to justify this reason for a veto.

3.8. For reason 2.4, the EMO does not see this as a problem.

4. _________ THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST NOT STATED IN VETOS _________
I went through all the discussions and gathered all the negative
comments. In this section, I explain why the EMO does not consider these
comments to be blockers for a project creation.

5. _________ THUS THE EMO HAS APPROVED TIGERSTRIPE _________
The EMO appreciates the discussion that has happened around this new
project. We believe that the discussion has clarified the proposal
(narrowed the scope), improved the project plan (clarified the goals),
and focused the project team (they understand more about what it means
to be part of Eclipse). All of this is good.

The EMO does not, however, believe that any of the discussion has
provided a valid reason to disqualify Tigerstripe from being an Eclipse
project. Thus the EMO has approved and provisioned the Tigerstripe project.]]>Bjorn Freeman-Benson2007-12-29T20:21:53-00:00Re: Why the EMO Approved the Tigerstripe Creation Reviewhttps://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/mv/msg/1843/5355/#msg_5355
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com